64 comments:

From the story:"Public opinion polls, including a New York Times/CBS News Poll conducted last month, showed broad support among Americans for the bill’s major provisions."

I believe this has been debunked thoroughly. Only 29% of public supported this bill. So the NYT is being typically cagey bu using the phrase "the bill's major provisions".

Btw, this same story was on the front page of the Philly Inquirer this morning and I had read it before I checked your blog.

Ann- don't you get tired of reading the NYT crappy "news" articles? You need to get out more and see what others are saying.

Re immigration bill, it would have added way more voters in border states and so theoretically could siphon congressional seats away from stagnant-population states like WI, PA, OH etc. Does it strike you as odd that someone from those states would vote for a bill that ultimately shrinks their representation and influence in Congress?

It's as simple as this, for me and many others: After 1986, we don't trust the government to fix the problem. The problem is an unsecured border. Close the border, and then we'll talk about the illegals already here. It's as simple as the old chestnut fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. We're like The Who in this situation, not willing to get fooled again.

As someone who hasn't followed this bill closely I am impressed at how grassroots organizations did seem to be passionate and were able to influence the senators and close this down. Democracy in action. A week ago it seemed like many democrats and even conservative southern republican senators were at the same podium cheerleading for this bill.

I don't think there were many democrats passionate (with the exception of Kennedy) to get this thing passed. Hell, even Barbara Boxer voted against it.

I do think what this entire exercise has proved is that Bush has little influence left and is basically not going to be able to do anything else for the next 18 months with the exception of stump for our continued presence in the war. And that may even be a stretch after September.

I do think in the long run this will hurt republicans. Not now, but years from now. The mexicans are the new gays. Not that the gay bating is over as evidence in the last republican debate and "don't ask, don't tell".

Speaking of the gays Dowd had a wonderful article today about the gays that would be great to link to.....crickets....never mind....it is negative about republicans.

Will be hearing from Dowd soon on this blog when she gets back to obambi bashing.

What gets me is that everyone they interviewed and wrote about was a republican yet all the polls I have seen had about the same percentage of democrats against the bill as republicans. Did they suddenly disappear? or were they hidden so the pollsters couldn't find them.

The photo of Thibodeaux that heads the NYT article is a tour de force. It manages to include a visual cue for just about every preconception held by elite NYT readers. Just look at these primitive rustics! Not only do they oppose the chosen liberal cause du jour, but they don't have a clue how to dress themselves!

To expand on tjl's comment, you've got 2 American flags in the frame (including one on clothing), a old American sedan in the driveway and a mangy dog cutting across the scene. You can almost hear the banjo's. That's a big neon sign indicating to NYT readers that they should be dismissive of the poor white trash from flyover country.

All of these points are driven not by the subjects of the photo, but by the framing by the photographer. These aren't people standing in a natural pose. They were obviously posed in this manner. Hell, the photag probably asked the husband if he had a nice patriotic shirt he could change into...

The Times reporters could have just as easily found a doctor down at the county hospital to serve as the "face" of the opponents of the bill. I'm sure they just opened a phone book and randomly picked names until they got to the first bill opponent, right?

Contrast NYTs spin with Rasmussen's good analysis of why the bill failed:

"...It wasn’t amnesty or guest-worker programs or paths to citizenship that doomed the bill. Each of those provisions made it more difficult for some segments of the population to accept. However, most voters were willing to accept them as part of a true compromise that accomplished the primary goal of reducing illegal immigration.

The key to winning voter support was to accomplish that primary goal.

The Senators missed that point and that’s where the mystery resides in analyzing why this bill failed. It’s not unusual for political leaders to be out of touch with their constituents, but rarely this out of touch. How could something this unpopular with voters get so close to passage in a legislative body that is supposed to represent them..."

I'm sure they just opened a phone book and randomly picked names until they got to the first bill opponent, right?

If only. This is why I don't bother with the NYTs anymore, Ann. I did an interview them back in 2000 re the Florida mess - they attribed my quotes to three separate characters: one with a texas drawl, another with a "hooded" sweatshirt [kkk ref anyone?]. Like anyone working in New York wouldn't recognize a baclava when they see it? They made people up out of whole cloth, merely to fabricate their narrative. I could get better info from the National Enquirer.

Rich Americans want cheap labor so they stay that way. Rich Mexicans want to send the poor Mexicans to America so they can stay rich.

Places like Puerto Penasco are booming because Americans are down their spending money on second homes instead of buying here in America. The builders can't find enough help because the Mexicans are all over here working illegally. Keep the money at home and send the illegals back where they belong!

No amnesty. It's time to take back our country so that there is something left for our own children and their children. Let the Mexicans take care of their own on their own soil.

One must assume that the netroots are thrilled at the defeat of the bill. "MyDD," for example, proclaims itself to be all about "Direct Democracy for People-Powered Politics," which is precisely what caused the defeat of both social security reform in the last Congress and immigration reform last week. In both instances, Congress buckled under pressure from the people it represents. Or is the left only for populism when it helps their causes?

A rare good word for the NYT: in saying that the bill "seemed [to many opponents] to divert taxpayer-financed resources to cater to foreigners who had not come to this country by legal means," it's nice that for once they differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants. Far too often, supporters of the measure have resorted to tarring opponents of the bill as being opposed to immigration, period. Unable to counter the arguments of opponents, proponents have resorted to hurling spurious accusations of xenophobia and racism. To be sure, there are a handful of people who are genuinely opposed to immigration as opposed to illegal immigration (Tancredo et al), but in the main, the hostility motivated by this bill has everything to do with how they arrived, not whether they arrived or what country they arrived from.

ShadyCharacter said..."The Times reporters could have just as easily found a doctor down at the county hospital to serve as the "face" of the opponents of the bill. I'm sure they just opened a phone book and randomly picked names until they got to the first bill opponent, right?"

That's precisely the question you want to ask. When media types start pretending that they're neutral and unbiased, start asking the questions: how do you choose who you quote? When you have a story about the immigration bill, out of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who could have served as an avatar for everyone else opposed to the bill, what in particular drew you to Monique Thibodeaux of Washington, MI?

Whenever you see an expert quoted in a story, do you think that the journalist just happened to call this particular expert and reproduced their opinion verbatim? I doubt it. As I suggested in the post linked above: "Judge Sack has observed that 'Judges use [law review articles] like drunks use lampposts, ... more for support than for illumination,' ... you have to wonder how journalists choose which quotations to include in their stories, and you have to wonder to what extent trad media use[s] quotations 'like drunks use lampposts': to say what they themselves would like to say through the agency of another person."

boston70 said..."I don't think there were many democrats passionate (with the exception of Kennedy) to get this thing passed. Hell, even Barbara Boxer voted against it."

She voted against cloture, not against the bill. They're different, and with all due respect, to misrepresent a vote against cloture as a vote against the bill is to be seduced by a liberal framing that drips with contempt for procedural rules. They tried the other face of the same coin on Lieberman with regard to the Alito nomination: "Lieberman voted for Alito," howled the nutsroots, notwithstanding that he in fact had voted only for cloture on the debate, and subsequently voted against Alito.

Whenever you see an expert quoted in a story, do you think that the journalist just happened to call this particular expert and reproduced their opinion verbatim?

Typically reporters in the MSM already know what it is they want to say in the story before they even begin investigating it, let alone writing it. The "investigation" phase consists of finding the sources including experts to underpin what it is that the reporter intends to write. Such has been the case since sometime in the Nixon administration. This is what passes for journalism in the modern era.

The NY Times inadvertently let slip in the MAIN reason that the public is opposed to this "comprehensive" bill

"Her strong feelings about the immigration issue came gradually, she said. A nephew who works as a house painter had trouble finding high-paying work because of competition from illegal immigrants

This unchecked flood of illegals working in an underground cash economy is destroying the middle class in America.

People don't trust the Government to solve this problem in a "comprehensive" sausage like bill. They have lied to us in the past and they are lying to us now. Congress and the President have no intention of stopping the illegals from flooding into our country and creating a permanent underclass of cheap uneducated workers who will most likely vote Democratic.

Contrary to what the politicians and the NY Times think, the people are not stupid. We can see the handwriting on the wall.

The picture in the NY Times is obviously is a nasty picture. Similar to pictures when Fox News shows voter fraud and we see all the blacks or when they have a picture of John Conyers when referring to William Jefferson.

The NY Times is liberal, they don't ever admit to not being liberal. If it so bothersome by some then don't read it. You got the Washington Times or the Wall Street Journal. Except with this issue the WSJ was supportive of this bill. If your intent in life is to read the NY Times and point out the liberal biases you need a fuller life.

IMHO, that gal quoted is fairly extreme in her opinions, we all wonder how long they had to look to find somebody like her to illustrate a white nativist GOP "good old gal" position. a black woman from Detroit whose nephew could not get work, would not do. same with a Hispanic American waving an American flag. This was the killer quote in the minds of the editors: “I have a very hard time with illegal,” she said. She proposes that all illegal immigrants be given a 90-day period to leave voluntarily. After that, immigration agents, local police and the National Guard, if necessary, should be mobilized to deport them, she said.

As I said earlier, I think most folks thought that the bill's priorities were backward. since we had "comprehensive reform in 65, 86, 07?, every 21 years, they don't want one again in 2028, with 50 million this next time.

What a lot of folks wanted was to avoid creating a vacuum behind 25 million new legals that would suck the next 50 million illegals in:

a. first build a useful wall.b. crack down on employersc. check immigration status of all folks convicted (not arrested) of feloniesd. deport convicted felons while they are still in custodye. deport folks ordered deported by courtsf. re prioritize quotas in favor of educated English speaking contributors. end chain immigration. g. put a long term screening and background process in place to legalize illegals remaining. But take your time and do it right. not with 100,000 additional applications A DAY, WITH 24 HOUR REQUIRED PROCESSING into a system that is already working with huge backlogs.

BTW, I understand that California is growing in population at the same time it is losing US citizens. pretty soon, you'll have Liberals living in compounds, with big walls, and private Armies, looking just like Mexico.

boston70 said..."Barbara Boxer did give a press conference with Byron Dorgan saying she did not approve of this bill."

Right - she did not approve of this bill in its current form. Which is why she refused to vote for cloture: she wanted to keep the debate open so she and those of the same mind as her could continue to offer amendments to the bill.

For me, the killer provisions were the obvious amnesty, not fixing the chain immigration problem with legal immigration and the pointed refusal to simply ban anyone with criminal records--other than illegal immigration--from gaining entry into the country, let alone citizenship.

Two provision that must be in any bill is super-strong enforcement, meaning mass deportations, and the requirement that to get legal status the person must go back to their native country, stay there a defined period of time, then reenter the country legally.

As referenced earlier, they must also stop chain immigration. Only a spouse and minor children should be allowed in based on one individual's visa.

The Drill SGT said..."BTW, I understand that California is growing in population at the same time it is losing US citizens. pretty soon, you'll have Liberals living in compounds, with big walls, and private Armies, looking just like Mexico."

Joe said..."Two provision that must be in any bill is super-strong enforcement, meaning mass deportations, and the requirement that to get legal status the person must go back to their native country, stay there a defined period of time, then reenter the country legally. ... [T]hey must also stop chain immigration. Only a spouse and minor children should be allowed in based on one individual's visa."

Therein lies the problem. Those to the left of center generally won't accept a bill that doesn't permit "family reunification," which is another way to describe "chain immigration," precisely what the right will not accept. Those to the right of center won't accept a bill that isn't enforcement-first, and the left won't accept a bill that's enforcement at all. And as we saw this week, we're not talking about the center vs. the fringe, this bill was killed by a coalition of moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats, conservatives and liberals. Immigration will be a weapon in the 2008 election, but it will be a hand grenade, not a more directed weapon, lacerating candidates from both parties with its shrapnel.

What I see happening is targeted court cases by those supporting this bill with the judges who are extreme liberals being the ones they bring the cases to as has already happened in Massachusetts after the INS raided those factories in New Bedford. Then the ACLU and their allies will point to these findings as the basis for letting more illegal immigrants in and giving the illegal immigrants already here all the benefits that are supposedly tied to citizenship. Then they will call it a fait accompli and you will see Kennedy trumpeting that we need to stop villainizing the poor illegal immigrants and allow them to regularize their status immediately and you will see all the criminals given citizenship.

Then they will play the card of how it is the conservatives who are beating on the poor immigrants who are just trying to make a living and we need to get more liberals elected so that the country can get back on track.

And Luckyoldson will be out there praising Kennedy to the skies and telling us again about the conservatives not being inclusive and diverse enough.

Then we will get hit with the concept of giving the vote to these same illegals since they are not represented in the body politic. There are already politicians in Massachusetts who are pushing for this as are some of the ones in California.

The NY Times sticks with the tried and true slur against opponents of their causes: the people disagreeing are misinformed, backward, or just plain evil.

But they have help in this method. Just last week, our priest at mass gave a homily about illegals, suggesting that Jesus would favor the bill, and that opposing illegal immigration was somehow unchristian.

Both are elitist and bar further discussion. Let's hope Congress can read some sense into it, given the sheer dislike for this bill.

Luckyoldson said..."dick, are you helping build the 1,800 mile southern border fence... or the 5,000 mile northern border fence?? are you paying for it? when you do...get back to me."

That's a singularly useless argument, one that can be made with no more or less force against everything the Federal government - indeed, any government at all - can do that defrays monies from its treasury. You might as well say "social security? Are you going to pay for it? Get back to me." Or "Marine Corps? Are you going to enlist? Are you going to pay for it?" How's this: "a Department of Justice? Well that's nice. Are you going to pay for it?"

When government undertakes an activity, it uses taxpayer money. That it will cost too much is a valid criticism; that it will cost anything is not.

based on the never-ending slam at democrats regarding iraq...you know, the "so what's YOUR solution???" query constantly thrown out by the republicans and conservatives...i'll pose a similar question to the republicans and conservatives here:

how do we deal with illegal immigration (the mexican brand)...but please include the following:

1. the cost of finding the 12,000,000+ already here.

2. the follow-up "legal" fees of the attorneys who will fight many of the deportation in court...because we have a really, really bad system in place to "keep track" of who is or is not "legal."

3. the cost of paying the welfare, etc. of the MILLIONS of wives, husbands and kids that are LEGAL...and are afforded the same protections as you...after we boot the bread winner out.

4. the "world view" of a country that pushes "democracy" on those whom we deem necessary...as they watch how we treat those who were actually among those who were here FIRST. (as in; indians and mexicans, etc.?)

5. how many of YOU will forego the many "advantages" of the "illegals."

While we take a run at that, you take a run at paying for all the benefits they get, at the cost of the education they get, at the costs of the medical care that is paid for by the US. Also take a cut at the lost jobs of our citizens (whether because the employers are going for the lowest paid they can get or not - I am sure you will take a swipe at the employers here).

There is a huge cost to our country that seems to be forgotten by those like Luckyoldson. That cost is not just in dollars but also in the crimes committed and the other social costs of the illegal immigration. That is something the libs seem to forget as they sit in their ivory towers and bray about how we are not living up to our past intake of immigrants. Of course most of those were legal, but never mind that.

And I love how the minute you talk against any initiative of the libs they say but about Iraq. I think personally that Iraq was something that would have happened sooner or later - in fact Clinton asked and got permission to effect regime change in Iraq in 1998 - and better sooner than later when Saddam had time to finish his Oil for Food scam.

But the subject of this posting was illegal immigration and I am definitely against it. There are circumstances where it should be done when there truly is a danger to the person from the government of his country, and in that one case I am for sanctuary, but other than that there are legal means of gaining citizenship and entry to this country and millions of people around the world are exercising them That is what should be going on with all these illegals and they should indeed be sent home pending their application and approval.

The dem approach to working a deal is give the dems what they want and the heck with anything else. They will find a solution later - maybe but maybe not - based on past performance definitely maybe not. Anything else is a STFU and get out of the way.

We have points of agreement and disagreement. From last to first: The profit angle is why many Republicans support it. Not the conservatives, the wealthy who want to buy their representatives.

We agree, there are way too many here.

Something is indeed going to happen. And it will be ugly. People will start to be harassed, then beat up, then lynched. I am against all this, and abhor such stupid violence, but it is coming as the populace gets more and more upset and sees the inability of our elected leaders to get anything done.

Build the fence, send people that are picked up by locl law enforcement home, and fine the shit out of the people that hire them.

When the jobs dry up, these folks will go back home.

But if nothing is done, things will get nasty. Hate groups will swell, the Panthers and the Nation will have a common "enemy," people shot in the street for looking Mexican.

Christ, no; however, both Paul and Peter had something to say about following the laws of the land:

Titus 3:1 - Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good

1 Peter 2:13-14 - 13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.

Now, none of that implies that the laws cannot be changed, but they do state to follow the ones as they are. Obviously "illegal" aliens aren't doing their part...

Yea it's always interesting how the NY Times (and other publications) can essentially create a written mockumentary through the selective use of interview subjects. Clearly a broad group of Americans were unhappy with the legislation, but they want to make their readership think it was killed by a select group of goobers.

On the broader issue, I am somewhat perplexed about how killing this bill will create any resolution to the immigration situation.

I had problems with the bill (lack of steep fines on business, and the creation of Y visas), but I fail to see how killing the bill will create a desired result.

And if the desired result is mass deportation of 12 million people, well, keep dreaming.

Unfortunately the path through doing anything crosses through Democrat country, so there will have to be compromises by everyone.

In the least, passing the bill might prove that half measures in fact do not work at all, thus clearing the ground for more robust measures.

I think my governor, Napolitano, had it quite right in suggesting that the status quo is "silent amnesty".

Yes there are problems on both the high end and low end of both illegal and legal immigration. Companies toy with the truth when they suggest that the 3000 or so people who get rejected for a given job at a Google or Microsoft are at a loss only because Sabu from Mumbai has that unique set of skills necessary to do the job. And it's absurd to suggest that Americans won't do certain jobs when companies are not paying a going wage, and have not for some time.

This bill won't change some of that. But killing it keeps everything standing still, and those who are patting themselves on the back are shortsighted, if not quite stupid.

And the hand patting their own back will be slapping their own head in disbelief if Dems take the White House and push through some legislation even less pleasant.

Mandatory ID voter identification would do at least two things: it would help deal with LOS' concerns about the cost of finding illegals, and it would serve to positively identify voters thereby helping ensure that legal voters vote.

Oh--and lets pass a constitutional amendment rejecting nativity as the only requirement for citizenship. No reason anyone who is here illegally should have any mechanism such as automatic citizenship for their kids as an inducement.

Yeah yeah: disadvantaging the poor yada yada: Before anyone trots that trope out, support it with some genuine statistics and or studies, rather than the anecdotal horse crap.

Luckyoldson: are you helping build the 1,800 mile southern border fence... or the 5,000 mile northern border fence?? are you paying for it? when you do...get back to me.

Variation of the chicken-hawk fallacy. I can't believe liberals are so stupid to keep playing that card.

/chickenhawk meme reversed:

Hey Lucky, if you really believe all that anti-war bs and want us out of Iraq, why aren't you staging hunger strikes on the steps of Congress? Why aren't you putting your life at risk to end this "illegal immoral" war when you do...get back to me

BUILD THE FENCE- Once the border is secure we can then deal with the illegals already here.

CENSUS THE ILLEGALS- After the border is secure, find who is here, who is employed, who is breaking other laws, who is worth keeping, who is not.

DEPORT THE UNDESIRABLE- If an illegal has a criminal record, either here or intheir home country, deport them. If an illegal is not working and supporting a family, deport them.

VISA THE DESIRABLE- If an illegal has a work history offer them a visa as a guest worker. They can use this visa to either migrate back and forth or to start the citizenship process; if they don't want the visa deport them.

HIT THE EMPLOYERS- Once the fence is up and we know who is here start to hit the employers- HARD. To facilitate the employment process we need to have a verifcation database that will allow an employer to check that the birth certificate, SSN card or other document is valid. Something as simple as faxing or emailing the document to an agency, who will have 10 business days to email back on its validity. If the INS shows up in 5 days, you know the doc was phony.

Face it we cannot deport 12 million people, with or without a secure border. We cannot take 4-6 million people out of the labor pool without affecting the economy drastically with the subsequent labor shortage.

We also need to modify the 'born here' clause. If you are born here of illegal immigrants, you are illegal as well, and not a citizen.

Do I consider myself to be unfeeling? No, I just have more compassion for how his mass illegal immigration will affect my children and grandchildren more than I worry about how stopping it will affect someone elses.

Ditto Redneck's plan amd would rec adding two additional provisos: No immigration legislation should include family reunification as a goal of immigration policy--not even primary family; once legalized, they can bring family via the normal immigration process. Why? may have some deterrent value in being illegal in the first place. They can also get a visa and visit.

Second proviso: legislation making it a felony to aid and abet an illegal immigrant. If folks have a charitable impulse, go to Africa and aid the poor or find some other way to fulfill those charitable impulses; perhaps being a human shield to keep refugees in Darfur safe from the somalians and janjuweed.

Count me among the unfeeling.

I suppose one final thing would be to invade Mexico, and finish the job we should have done in the 1840s. It would probably be cheaper to stop immigration by annexing and reforming Mexico. We would be welcomed as liberators and with flowers, too--just ask Rummy and Wolfie /sarcasm off

An Edjamikated Redneck said..."Once the border is secure we can then deal with the illegals already here."

This one seems so elementary that it's hard to presume good faith of the people who oppose it. It's axiomatic that without control of the borders, a debate about border policy is moot; if you have control of the borders, you can discuss what your border access policy should be, but if you don't have control of the borders, then ipso facto your policy is open borders, any other policy being unenforcable.

This immigration bill is about nothing but money and power. Any enforcement provisions would summarily be removed or rendered moot by the ACLU/La-Raza crews in no time notwithstanding the many loopholes already in the bill as it stands. I believe too that provisions of the bill extending the time taken to become a voter will be rescinded or radically decreased by judicial fiat as well.

No, the bill is not about controlling our borders or stopping illegal immigration. It is about building and solidifying, over time, an unassailable power base consisting of aligned economic and cultural interests that are promising huge numbers of votes and I'm sure campaign dollars to those who support the passage of the bill.

The bill artificially creates a large, unified, underclass voting block that is beholden to the government for welfare and a multitude of other taxpayer provided 'programs' and is guided by activist groups like La Raza.

Whomever controls this large artificial voting block controls Congress, the office of the President, and eventually, the Supreme Court. Remember, the difference in the 2004 election between winner and loser was just over 3M votes. A new artificially created block of 12 to 20 million voters will radically change the future of the country.

Bush is the executive leader of the government whether you like it or not. As such he in his position deserves some support. You have given absolutely none whatsoever even when he does what you claim you want done. Point to anything positive you have said about the government at all - any branch.

As to the voting for the illegals, there is an attempt in Massachusetts as we speak where a state legislator is trying to get voting rights granted to immigrants without regard to whether they are legal or illegal if they have been in the country for a certain period of time. In state and local elections, the rules are made by the state and citizenship has nothing to do with it if the legislators pass the law giving the immigrants voting rights. If this passes, look for the ACLU and their sister groups (HRW, etc) to start court action to get this done more and more citing the Massachusetts example as a basis. Article in the Boston globe right after the court case announced about the INS raiding the New Bedford shops for illegals about this initiative.

The state is also trying to allow illegals to get into the state university at in-state tuition rates and give them state scholarships as well. That is rather a kick in the face of all the legal immigrants we have who are waiting to get citizenship.

I have no problem with legal immigrants at all. In fact my last position before I retired I was in charge of a group consisting of 10 Russian immigrants who were working for a major bank as programmers and we got along fine. They all came in legally and have all got their citizenships or are waiting to take the test (2 waiting, rest of the 10 already passed). Ask them what they think about this bill. They all waited in Italy to get permission to come in for a couple of years and that was with special permission due to endangering their lives if they stayed in the Soviet Union. Big difference from giving all sorts of things to illegals.